Vandivier-Kalam Definition, Vandivier-Kalam Cosmological Argument

• John Vandivier

<a class="zem_slink" title="The Kalām Cosmological Argument" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kal%C4%81m_Cosmological_Argument" target="_blank" rel="wikipedia">The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a well known argument for God. There's a big problem with it, however, in that the definition of God is highly disputed. This article takes the Kalam from a proof for God and turns it into a definition of God.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:

  1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause.

  2. The universe began to exist.

Therefore

  1. The universe has a cause, and that cause is God.

The proof is bulletproof for those who understand it, but ambiguous and problem-causing for those who don't. The problem and ambiguity enters in from the question, "What is meant by God?" Turning the argument into a definition fixes the issue. We can then use the newly defined term in a more clear argument. This changes the way the Kalam Cosmological Argument is presented, but maintains the point of the argument. I think it cleans and clears up some ambiguity as well. The new argument is 3 Part and may be called the Vandivier-Kalam Cosmological Argument. The middle section is the Vandivier-Kalam Definition of God.

VKCA Part 1:

  1. Everything which begins to be has a cause.

  2. The universe began to be.

Therefore

  1. The universe has a cause.

VKCA Part 2, VKDG:

Let God be defined as the cause of the universe.

VKCA Part 3:

  1. The universe has a cause

  2. God is the cause of the universe

Therefore

  1. God is.

We can elaborate on this argument further to point directly to Christianity, rather than the simple existence of God. The technical phrasing of the following proof needs work, but hopefully you can see the point of the argument:

VKCA Part 4:

  1. If A is either true or false, given no other information, then there is a 50% chance that A is true.

  2. If B is true and consistent with A then A is more likely to be true then if B is either not true or unknown.

  3. Let statement 3 of VKCA Part 3 be called "statement 3."

  4. Statement 3 is true and consistent with Christianity.

Therefore

  1. Christianity is more likely to be true than not true.
Related articles